>This is only true in the multi-point AF modes. In >single-servo, single-point AF the only data that is important >is that which is under the selected focus point.
If you're basing your comment on factual technical knowledge about the way in which the AF system works, then you've just added some really valuable information. The thing is, I don't have precise technical knowledge about the AF system and I've been making an assumption that even using a single point AF mode it is still necessary for the AF system to use proximal data in order to get the best possible focus lock.
>If all of the focus points did work well in single-servo, >single-point, I would bet a lot of money that the performance >in continous-servo and dynamic-area modes would improve >greatly.
I agree, and it seems self-evident. My own point has been that the proposed test method doesn't allow the AF system's single point mode to work to all of its strengths.
>IMO it's a ignoratio elenchi to say "yes AF-S >single-point doesn't work well in test scenarios, use AF-C >dynamic-area in the real-world."
I suggest that it is not a good idea to critique grammar, sentence construction and so on in a public forum. Irrelevant conclusion (ignoratio elenchi) or not, I'd ask for a clarification. For example, although throughout this part of the thread the posters have been careful about noting that they are expressing opinion and supposition and the results of experiment, you state unqualifyingly that "In single-servo, single-point AF the only data that is important is that which is under the selected focus point" but don't offer any technical information in support. So your statement might be judged merely reductio ad absurdum (proof by contradiction). Help us by explaining your understanding that Nikon's AF system does not use or does not necessarily need proximal data when it is set to use a single AF point. Believe me, I need the education.